Film Review

star1-0

Brandishing a literal-minded title as laughable as the rest of its action, Cowboys & Aliens mashes up genres with a staunch dedication to getting everything wrong, making sure that each scene is more inane than the one that preceded it. This hybrid of an oater and an extraterrestrial-invasion saga opens with Jake (Daniel Craig) awakening in the 1873 Arizona desert with a mysterious metal bracelet on his wrist and no idea who he is or how he got there. A run-in with three bandits proves that he knows how to kick ass, however, and after an altercation with the cocky son (Paul Dano) of cattle baron Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) in a struggling mining town lands him in deep trouble, he discovers that his newfound high-tech jewelry has a purpose—namely, to help him laser-blast insectoid spaceships, which bombard the community with explosive blasts and use glowing cables to snatch up citizens and take them to whereabouts unknown. Thus Jake, Dolarhyde, and a few random others—saloon owner Doc (Sam Rockwell), Dolarhyde's Native American servant Nat (Adam Beach), and enigmatic beauty Ella (Olivia Wilde)—set out in search of their seized brethren, a quest that leads them from a fake-looking frontier town across generic scraggly plains to similarly bogus stage sets, including an upside-down riverboat in the desert and an E.T. compound hidden amid the mountains.

On the basis of his directorial oeuvre, no one would have mistaken Jon Favreau for John Ford, yet Cowboys & Aliens's western accoutrements are still so false as to be stunning, with every steely-eyed glare from Craig's Man With No Memory, every confrontation between his Jake and Ford's grizzled Dolarhyde, and every silhouetted horseback ride across a sunset range seeming like a wan approximation of a familiar genre staple. Despite collaborating with expert DP Matthew Libatique, Favreau's visuals have an inauthentic and bland blockbuster sheen, and his actors are similarly afflicted with a case of poseur-itis (Craig's affected silent-type glowering, Ford's gruff racism, or Wilde's blank, wide-eyed stares), failing to deliver a single believable line-reading or gesture. It's all so much high-gloss make-believe incapable of establishing any foundational element of its fiction, which proves troublesome once the script (based on Scott Mitchell Rosenberg's 2006 graphic novel) begins straddling the line between gunslinger showdowns and out-of-this-world craziness. That involves lots of wannabe-scary sequences in which low light strives to mask the technically so-so, imaginatively mediocre aliens themselves—roaring humanoid monsters whose sole distinguishing trait is a ridiculously useless set of extra arms that are hidden inside their chest cavity and, when used, leave their hearts completely vulnerable to attack.

These creatures have apparently come to Earth to mine for gold, which, when coupled with their desire to eradicate the indigenous population, makes them just like the human miners who distrust the area's Native Americans—except, however, that humans are depicted as having the capacity to change their xenophobic ways, as Dolarhyde does in a late act of gag-inducing Kumbaya mushiness. Yet if Dolarhyde's change of heart reeks of contrived political-correctness pandering, it's no more off-putting than the sheer illogicality of the aliens' strategy of abducting people so they can study their weaknesses, as if 19th-century folk with a few rifles had any real strengths comparable to these beings' physical superiority and plethora of airships and energy canons. Jake's Iron Man-ish laser blaster is a cheap means of leveling the battlefield, and a revelation about Ella is such a knuckleheaded way of giving the cowboys further crucial informational and tactical advantages that, alongside its counterfeit atmosphere and performances, Cowboys & Aliens soon seems actively interested in seeing how far it can push itself into phoniness. The answer is way too far, though there's some camp humor to be had in a ride-into-the-sunset finale that leaves open the possibility for a Railroad Tycoons & More Aliens sequel.

I\'m halfway through this thing at a drive - in. Another hour? I\'m considering sleep. I may not have a choice in the matter in the end.

Posted by Jesse Cataldo on 2011-08-18 19:30:56

If it was supposed to be funny, you'd be right.

Posted by Anonymous on 2011-08-08 17:12:07

Lee - Was that animal thing a joke? Please tell me you weren't trying to be funny. That was a massive cring - worthy fail! You're way out of your league here. You literally might be the least funny person in North America. You know that, right? I feel like people have told you that before.

Posted by louis on 2011-08-07 22:07:36

Well, I have seen the movie,and can say I think Schager is right. The movie is bad for all the reasons he states. Instead of using an ounce of imagination or creativity, this movie instead is a very sloppy, boring, and low rent looking exercise. What should have been the most entertaining movie of the summer (for the cast alone!) instead is nothing more than a cheap product. I don't always agree with Schager (do you always agree with critics, even the ones you like? I sure don't.), but reserved judgement until I saw the movie for myself. Maybe you should do the same. Or go to the zoo and talk to the animals. They might find your rants interesting.

Posted by Anonymous on 2011-08-07 13:01:11

Just want to say that I'm LOVING this thread. Of course I also love car accidents...

Posted by muram on 2011-08-06 21:24:19

"If the movie sucks" is the key phrase here.

But go on to metacritic and notice how often Nick Schager's reviews are at the bottom of their scoring. So I was guttersniping, yes, but the man is the ultimate guttersnipe, albeit sanctioned by Slant.

Psssst: Increasing Rob's literacy does not an interesting review make. There's a difference between an intelligent film review and a screed. And Nick would do well to learn that difference or risk furthering his reputation as someone who generally hates movies, with a a few rare exceptions. And I'm not saying "doesn't like"; I'm saying HATES with the kind of vitriolic stupidity you only find in those schizoids and pseudo - intellectual hipster - types.

Posted by louis on 2011-08-06 13:36:16

If the movie sucks, so be it (pssst: it\'s kind of our role). Not much different than plenty that goes on in the comments section on Rotten Tomatoes, except that I tend to learn more new words from Mr. Schager\'s reviews than the brain cells I lose from reading the jerk - off prose of web cretins. That\'s a specific reference to Rotten Tomatoes, not any posters here.

Posted by Jesse Cataldo on 2011-08-05 22:18:08

This movie was pretty weak for sure, no doubt. Maybe the worst big movie I've seen this summer. But I gotta admit that Louis has a point about Nick's reviews in general, even if she expresses herself like a jerk - off. He does love to hate. It's sort of his thing. Rob, you gotta defend your friend/colleague so good on you. But come on...he's all about tearing film - makers a new asshole.

Posted by Anonymous on 2011-08-04 23:26:40

They may not be \"current,\" but my sense of time also labels them as \"new\" (and for the sake of the argument, I went with well - known, popular movies, not, you know, the foreign films that \"sometimes he\'s nice to\"). Nick and I have been described as two of the most similar critics at Slant, taste - wise, and I\'m not able to see what one might call smug in his reviews. I like most of the movies that I see, but for me it\'s a hobby and I\'m selective. If I saw everything, it\'d be a different story. If Nick found joy in the movie in question, he\'d reflect on that, as would his star rating. If he found dull craftsmanship and half - baked genre homages, ditto. I still want to see Cowboys & Aliens, and if there are \"intricacies\" you felt or enjoyed, you should talk about them rather than attempting to disqualify the experience of another. The movie you saw might be different from the movie Nick saw, or that I will see. Guttersniping is weak.

Posted by Jesse Cataldo on 2011-08-04 16:04:51

And by the way, I don't mind reviews not liking things. But Nick S. just decides he doesn't like a film and then uses his space to rip it shreds in the most shallow way, without ever engaging with the intricacies or the joy of the movies in question.

Posted by louis on 2011-08-04 10:40:11

Rob, those movies aren't exactly current. Superbad? Really? Thanks for the advice though. But all you have to do is read review written in, say, the last year or so and you'll see an overwhelmingly negative smug - fest.

Posted by louis on 2011-08-04 09:48:00

The Social Network. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Inglourious Basterds. Sherlock Holmes. The Dark Knight. WALL - E. Borat. Knocked Up. Superbad. All films Mr. Schager loved, and these are only a few of the recent ones I remember off the top of my head. louis, grow up.

Posted by Jesse Cataldo on 2011-08-03 14:21:58

Parker - I think you're right that the words matter more than the stars. Though I still don't agree that the review is thoughtful. It's actually pretty easy to tear something apart. It offers no real insight. I I also believe that being overly critical is a great way to miss what's special about a lot of films and isn't holding anyone to a higher standard. It just flatters the vanity and feelings of superiority in the reader.

Posted by muram on 2011-08-01 10:22:02

The review is a thousand times more thoughtful than the film. I feel like people are getting bent out of shape about the rating, as if it matters more than the words. Even still, you might give it two stars, but you also might like it more than Nick. That's just the way opinions work in general, folks. If he feels like it's a one - star movie, who are we to say he's being dishonest or "incorrect?" I think his review justifies the rating completely.

And if you find that Schager likes to err on the side of negative, I'd argue that's because most movies released these days (indie or otherwise) are pretty lousy. We should hold film, and ourselves, to a higher standard.

Posted by Parker on 2011-08-01 08:15:32

Parker - I have to say after reading some his reviews that there's no question the Nick Schager likes to err on the side of negative (Bellflower excepted). As a movie lover I find that frustrating. There's a few indie films in particular that I liked that he was very snarky about, very cruel to. I don't think Louis is saying the review or our expectations should be dumbed down, but that certain films fulfill certain criteria. Or don't. Like I said, I think "Cowvboys and Aliens" is a two and a half star film and better than some of the other comic book movies this summer. I understand if that makes me unpopular though, because let's face it, it's still not a good movie. But it is better than this review would lead you to believe IMHO. And to be honest I don't think this review was very thoughtful.

Glenn - I think you're right. Personal attacks don't belong here.

Posted by muram on 2011-07-31 22:32:04

Schager is one of the best film critics writing reviews, second only to Gonzalez, and the review is far from lousy. The film is lousy, yet Louis argues that we should dumb down our expectations of the film because, as he puts - it, "it's a dumb summer tent - pole film" and "risky" given the low criteria for summer movies in general. There's no two ways about it, that's just a stupid sentiment that encourages thoughtlessness over thoughtfulness, and that's not why I come to Slant.

By the way, Schager's review of Bellflower pretty much disproves your theory.

Posted by Parker on 2011-07-31 17:15:25

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I thought this movie was better than Thor and Green Lantern. A low - bar, I know, but there you have it.

Posted by muram on 2011-07-31 12:02:28

Ooh, boy, here we go again.

Posted by Anonymous on 2011-07-31 01:31:21

Well Cde, yes. The review is lousy. Does that mean the film looks good? No. But I'm betting it deserves more than one star. Or at least to be taken on the terms it's offered on - ie. a big dumb summer tent - pole film, one of the few that is not a sequel or based on very well - established comic book character. In other words, one of the only risky choices in the summer blockbuster category.

Like I said, read his other reviews. Proof is all there.

Posted by louis on 2011-07-30 14:25:16

So louis, basically you chose to attack the critic in a talkback for a negative review of a film you don't think looks good?

Posted by Cde. on 2011-07-30 06:33:30

Oh wow - Nick Schager doesn't like something!!! What a moron. This guy's whole thing is handing out one and two star reviews and then writing verbose, annoying, quasi - grad student take downs of...well...of almost everything (ok, sometimes he's nice to foreign films. That's deemed ok in his very overt rulebook).

Do I think this movie looks good? No. But this jerk - hole just plain hates movies. Don't believe me? Go read his other reviews. Then google his image and look at his jerky face. He reeks of failure and masturbatory prose.